- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:01:49 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `reconsider name of frames() timing function`. <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: reconsider name of frames() timing function<br> <dael> Github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1301<br> <dael> brian: We introduced a new timing function where the difference is it includes both endpoints. It has a different name and different not ation so it counts number of steps. That made sense from usability pov though it's different than step timing<br> <dael> brian: There's two complexities. The timing functions in other content and other gradients which may need further variations. I'm wondering if we should extend steps or have something more familiar.<br> <dael> TabAtkins: We should continue this on issue.<br> <dael> Rossen_: Thank you Brian for the introduction to it.<br> <dael> Rossen_: Please jump to the GH issue and give your feedback there.<br> <dael> Rossen_: Next wednesday we'll resume with this.<br> <dael> Rossen_: Thanks Brian and please everyong give your opinion on the issue.<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1301#issuecomment-311723511 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 28 June 2017 17:06:13 UTC